Working with the leaders of Nepal to reduce poverty illustrates why it is important to support countries in fragile situations, says UK Development Minister Shahid Malik.

Nepal is at an historic crossroads. A decade-long conflict ended in 2006; largely free and fair elections in April have created the most representative and youngest parliament in the country’s history, and seen the 240-year-old monarchy peacefully abolished. But the emerging Maoist-led government faces major challenges to deliver lasting peace and development.

In my visits I have met Nepal’s political leaders, the new generation of politicians, government officials, civil society, private sector leaders and Nepal’s donor community and I am convinced that success is possible, as the country works to create an inclusive, democratic and prosperous society.

Already we have seen signs of how development has progressed in a period of conflict and instability, something which has eluded many countries in similar situations. Support to health care is a good example: over the period of the conflict, the death rates of children under five years of age halved, and that of mothers in pregnancy and childbirth substantially reduced. Or take rural infrastructure: from 2001 onwards, during the conflict, DFID supported the construction of rural roads which helped to connect a million isolated people to the road network. This has helped raise incomes and improve access to health and education. And inclusion has also been central to progress – since 2001, DFID has supported programmes demanding greater inclusion of women, of Dalits, and Janajatis in state bodies and in politics, and we’ve seen commitments to do the same in the civil service, the police, and in the electoral law.

The recent progress of Nepal highlights vital lessons for development in fragile contexts across the world. It’s true that only about 9% of the population of developing countries live in such countries, but extreme poverty, child and maternal deaths are three to four times more common in such places, while, the instability in these countries contributes to regional and international security concerns. That’s why half of the countries in which DFID works are fragile.

There are risks involved in working in situations of conflict and political instability, but developmental progress is as essential here as anywhere and the benefits of success are great. People often ask me why we work to support national government in situations like these. “Why don’t we give money direct to the people who need it?” The answer is that without stable and transparent government, development either won’t happen, or won’t last. We only have to look at Zimbabwe to see what happens when governance goes bad. We don’t want to see that happen in Nepal, which is why we are working with government ministries and institutions (and also with NGOs and civil society) to help deliver a future where poor communities can flourish.

And we are working very carefully. In Nepal, the UK has followed agreed OECD principles for working in fragile situations. These tenets form an agreed framework for working in such circumstances. First, we take context as the starting point. DFID undertook detailed analysis at the outset and aid instruments were aligned with local priorities. Sometimes, as in rural infrastructure, we have worked parallel to government, other times, as in health and education, we have worked through government.

Second, we have made a focus on state-building the central objective, building accountability: through support to the elections; through improved local governance and community development; supporting improved

service delivery in health and education; support to government ministries such as Finance and the Prime Minister’s Office. At the same time we have also supported civil society organisations in their demands for improved governance, representation and accountability.

Nepal has been a society where a small elite has monopolised control over the state for decades, and so we have also emphasised “promoting nondiscrimination as a basis for inclusive and stable societies”. The Community Support Programme targeted two thirds of its spending on basic services for excluded groups, while in our roads programmes, which employ labour only from the poorest and most disadvantaged groups, half of those employed must be women.

In partnership with Germany’s GTZ, we set up a Risk Management Office in 2002 through which we encourage greater transparency, and public hearings and audits on aid programmes in order to build community understanding and support. Another significant development was in agreeing practical coordination mechanisms between international actors, helping clarify the role of agencies operating in conflict-affected areas. This helped maintain access to these zones to make sure humanitarian relief could be delivered, and development activities were continued. More recently DFID has led on the creation of the Nepal Peace Trust Fund, one of the first governmentled multi-donor peace funds, with donors providing budget support to government.

Above all, our approach in Nepal is about using all the means at our disposal that will enable development to continue in this fragile situation. The lessons we have learnt through our work with our partners in Nepal is helping shape our global developmental response in other fragile contexts – and it is boosting our ability to influence our multilateral partners to improve their own work.

It is a huge challenge to deliver effective development in vulnerable and post-conflict countries – ‘business as usual’ is just not possible in these situations. We have to adapt, to be flexible, and to coordinate closely with our partners whether they be the donor community or the diplomatic service. What working in Nepal has taught us is that we must always make preventing violence a priority, and invest in the long-term goal of state-building and peace-building. Otherwise, the poor go to the wall.